Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>]

Dear Cynthia,

Thank you for your posting. I make some comments below.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: BH-l: BH/LBH and purpose of discussion
Author:  <cynthia AT oumail.openu.ac.il> at Internet
Date:    15/02/2000 15:42


Dear Peter, Paul and others who would rather discuss the historical aspects 
of Biblical Hebrew,

The main problem you must take into account is that the arguments for BH/LBH 
progression are circular and do not adequately tally with the phenomena 
observable from epigraphic Hebrew sources throughout the first millenium.
1. Yes, the Hebrew of Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemia is different from that of 
Samuel-Kings (conveniently termed "classical Hebrew"), and that this 
divergent Biblical Hebrew has affinities with Mishnaic Hebrew, and anyone 
wishing bibliography on this may apply to me offline. But does this 
necessarily mean that the Hebrew of Sam-Kings is earlier, and that of Chron, 
Ez-Neh is later? The argument is based...

PK: In part. Other parts of the argument are the affinities of LBH 
with Mishnaic i.e. later Hebrew which you mention; and simply that the 
difference has to be explained somehow, the most probable explanation 
(for books which are probably all produced by elite circles in 
Jerusalem) is a time gap, and that since Ezra-Nehemiah must be late 
the best explanation is that Samuel-Kings is, as it claims to be, 
earlier.

.. upon literary assumptions - a) that Sam-Kings is a pre-exilic 
composition; b) that Chronicles is a rewriting of Sam-Kings. Both of these 
assumptions have been hotly argued in recent scholarly discussion, and 
again, apply to me offline for references...

PK: a) is the point under discussion here. Quite frankly (having 
worked through the parallelisms between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles) I 
find that serious questioning of b) incredible, though it could of 
course be an over-simplification. But I have not seen literature 
seriously arguing the contrary position.

.. Now, if Sam-Kings is a pre-exilic composition, then we should expect the 
Hebrew of this work to accurately reflect the characteristics (other than 
those of orthography which changed in transmission) of the inscriptional 
Hebrew of the Iron Age. But this is not the case. For example, it is 
frequently stated that Classical BH uses accusative pronouns alongside 
accusative suffixes, while LBH has near exclusive use of accusative 
suffixes. However, in this matter oddly enough, Iron Age inscriptional 
Hebrew displays the usage considered characteristic of LBH, rather than the 
alternation of suffixes with separate acc. pronouns in "classical" biblical 
texts.

PK: You speak of "this matter". What about other matters? In such a 
case one needs to look at the whole range of indicators, rather than 
focusing on one which happens to fits one's presuppositions. Has there 
been a detailed study of the whole range of indicators?

2. If the Hebrew of Chron., Ez.-Neh., which is conveniently termed LBH, 
represents in fact a late development of biblical Hebrew, then how is it 
that late biblical texts, like Esther, the MT addition to I Sam 17 and 
others, are relatively free of LBH? How is it that a text as late as Ps. 151 
is written in classical Hebrew devoid of elements of late morphology or 
syntax?

PK: Here you are the one making literary and dating assumptions. I 
accept that Esther is post-exilic of course and so must be deliberate 
archaising as widely argued. But you are assuming a late date for 
parts of 1 Sam 17 on the basis of certain assumptions about its 
obviously complex textual history. I have never heard of a Hebrew text 
of Psalm 151 - is this the same as the LXX Psalm 151? Or did you make 
a slip with the numbering here? Then on what basis do you assume that 
this psalm is late?

In light of these problems, there is good reason to doubt whether one is 
justified in appealing to BH diachronics when attempting to date composition 
of texts. How, then, to explain the differing linguistic characteristics of 
biblical texts? Part of the answer might have to do with stylistics. Another 
factor might be sociolects adopted by writers in order to indentify 
themselves with different groups. Synchronic regional variations must not be 
ruled out either.

PK: None of these factors can be ruled out, but a detailed study of 
the dating theory is also necessary.

Cynthia Edenburg

The Open University of Israel         Tel. 972-3-6460500    fax. 
972-3-460767
Dept. of History, Philosophy and Jewish Studies 
POB 39328     Rehov Klausner   16
Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 61392  ISRAEL